My response to the Golden Sound MQA test
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 чер 2024
- I received many questions about the video GoldenSound published on UA-cam in which the presenter claims to have proven that MQA should be avoided at all times. He furthermore called out to his viewers to ban Tidal. Well, here is my view on the matter.
Contents of this video
00:00 - Intro
00:27 - Start of program
01:03 - My position
01:57 - My view
04:02 - Digital system
06:15 - Bob Stuart
07:45 - Peter Craven
08:29 - My thoughts
09:57 - The wrap
Relevant links:
Golden Sound: I published music on Tidal to test MQA - MQA Review: • I published music on T...
Is MQA lossless?: • Is MQA lossless?
My MQA playlist: • MQA
The truth about Nyquist and why 192 kHz does make sense: • The truth about Nyquis...
Polynomals at Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynomial
If you like my work, support it through:
My Patreon page: / thehbchannel
Paypal: www.paypal.me/theHBchannel
My book: • File Based Audio aka S...
My links:
My site: www.theHBproject.com/en
My channel: / thehansbeekhuyzen
My Facebook page: / hansbeekhuyzen
My Google+ page: www.google.com/+TheHansBeekhuyzen
My Twitter: / hansbeekhuyzen
My reference sets:
About Questions: • About questions
Q&A: Which device is better?: • Q&A: Which device is b... - Наука та технологія
Eh, it's another response that misses the argument. It's not about what you prefer, it's about whether or not the claims MQA are legitimate or whether they're false/misleading advertising. The audiophile community is niche, the attention and spotlight on this subject is going to be minimal, but the principle remains the same. If you like MQA then more power to you but the argument is still not about what sounds best. The consumer can still make an informed decision regarding the use of an MQA streaming service or the adoption of MQA decoding/rendering gear but they have to do so on an absence of information and data.
I am becoming increasingly confused by the lack of support for consumer advocacy on this subject.
GoldenSound didn't consider if MQA sounds good or bad, but if it's lossless or not.
MQA is as groundbreaking as the ”mega bass”- button.
I have enormous respect for you Hans, but here you did not address a single point that that Golden has challenged and your response to all is "sound is an objective thing". You literally have measuring equipment behind you and you often post measurements so please stop doing them if you believe that there is no truth in them whatsoever and that they are irrelevant. Golden measured and showed the distortions that need to be addressed with a valid counterargument if you want to post a noteworthy response. "Everything is lossless" is not a valid argument - quantum physics tells us that there is no absolute certainty and that everything is lossy on the quantum level :) but we all know what Tidal's marketing is focused on. Their statement that MQA is somehow less lossless than the de-facto standard FLAC. His measurements do not support that claim and that is most people's beef with Tidal. It's about misusing the term lossless. I can't hear the difference between CD and Hi-Res on my setup (Cambridge Audio AXR100, KEF R300, streaming from an Echo Link via coax) so I could not care less about anything above 16/44.1 and as such not interested in MQA but I understand what false marketing is and I understand it upsets some people...
What GoldenSound did, which is important, is to control the input. One of the really big problems of doing listening tests and particularly comparing formats is that you don't know whether the files themselves are created to the same standard and the quality of each have been maximised during production. And that means there are various things that you can empirically prove that have nothing to do with listening tests.
For example, if you were looking to prove FLAC is a lossless compression, then you can start with an uncompressed wave file, compress it, decompress it and get back a wave file that is bit-for-bit identical with what you started with. If it isn't then it wouldn't be lossless. Same applies to things like digital distribution - if you have the original file that was uploaded to a streaming site, then you can empirically prove whether there are any changes in the digital file when it is retrieved and decompressed.
That doesn't mean that MQA or a streaming site is doing anything that is audible in a listening test. But there is clearly a problem if something is advertised as lossless and you can empirically prove that this is not the case. If you are folding data into the audio stream to be unfolded by supporting equipment, by definition that can not be the absolute best representation possible for equipment that doesn't support unfolding (although high quality production would outweigh any cost of folding compared to dynamic range compression).
There was also an interesting post by John Darko recently commenting on MQA, pointing out that not everyone has access to fast internet connections, and therefore MQA folding has some benefit for users with limited bandwidth. Which is true. Although I rather think that a format like 16-bit/48khz should also be an option. The increase in bandwidth over CD quality is rather minimal, but you would gain a little bit more headroom at the upper frequencies, and may be a better target depending on how the track was recorded and mixed.
Before I decided what streaming service to subscribe I tested Tidal and Qobuz for a few months. Performing listening tests on my gear led to a pro Qobuz decision. In the age of Video streaming bandwidth of hires audio is not an issue.
It is also not the real point of MQA ... It's a side effect.
Have you tried Amazon Music HD? I'm curious what your thoughts are if so. I have found Amazon Music HD to sound better after being on Tidal for 3 months. Listening to beloved tracks was refreshing in Amazon Music HD and noticed a considerable difference. My speakers pick up most detail and distortion.
@@duranarts same here. I finally choose Amazon music HD after I tried Tidal. Never tried Qobuz, was too expensive any ways.
I did the same (including files that I know perfectly, because I restored them on behalf of recording companies : the originals files being available on my NAS for comparison...)
Low level signals or space cues were much clearer in the streaming from Qobuz. Noise to signal level seemed much higher in the TIDAL streaming : a lot of these small signal cues had gone missing...
Unless I missed it he did not say boycott rather vote with your wallets if...not the word 'if'. I have listened to many MQA tracks on Tidal. They are different but I would not say better. The MQA team do need to more transparent in their marketing.
Yeah, he also said ask the manufacture to have a product that doesn't include MQA as if it's something you don't want you shouldn't be forced to pay for it
As others have been saying, it is the lying about what a product is that makes it a sore subject for me. If the lossy format MQA sounds better than lossless, great! But then don't say its lossless because it is not. Market it for what it is which is a modified file that supposedly sounds better to the ear. It is much like EQ, tube amps, R2R DACS, and certain cables. None of these things keep the original source untouched, but to many people, they enjoy the sound more nonetheless. I have no problem with that. No consensus can be made about MQA if people dodge questions and avoid testing. Lastly, choice is important. When I buy an amp I can choose between Solid state and R2R. Why can't I choose between FLAC and MQA? Looking forward to Apple lossless. At least they can prove it's bit perfect and don't mind people testing their ALAC. True lossless without any licensing issues! Apple (and soon Spotify) have my money.
Don't forget the bigger picture here beyond any sonic output, MQA's long term plan is to be the standard file for consumer streaming replacing PCM FLAC, all major record labels could process their back catalogue and drive all lossless businesses to accept this file only seen as most companies will have at least 16/44.1 tier by the end of 2021.
All the major record companies have a financial interest in MQA ltd. My worry is a loss of consumer choice if they pull it off, if we are all OK with that scenario then everything is fine
I was a long time Tidal HiFi subscriber (5 years?), up until recently. I didn't unsubscribe because I didn't/or I did like MQA. I did so because Tidal lied to me; passing off "folded" MQA files as FLAC files. I detest such deception and hence, it led to my discovery of Qobuz and have never looked back since. I've discovered that Qobuz sounded less "digital" and the music "flows" more naturally. Some might argue that the music selection is very limited but I'm enjoying the quality of what they do have, too much, that I didn't miss what was not there. The exception being, only two CD quality Eva Cassidy tracks; really @Qobuz ?
That's not my experience although some non MQA hardware doesn't seem to agree with MQA files.
I noticed that too. No Eva Cassidy, but I’m sure it’s not the fault of Qobuz, it’s likely the company owning the music.
I have always enjoyed these presentations, but this was very disappointing. Shooting the messenger (Golden Sound) is not a persuasive argument. Nor is ignoring the measurements presented in the Golden Sound MQA test. Singing the praises of the individuals involved in the development and marketing of MQA also doesn't add anything to the discussion. By all means trust your ears, we all do. But also know that psychoacoustics cant be overcome just because you are a "trained listener" you need to do blind listening tests. It is clear that MQA's response to Golden Sound is a marketing disaster. Their shooting the messenger was also not a persuasive argument. The most bothering thing about this whole debacle is the lack of transparency from MQA which only heightens the suspicion of an audiophile that it is all snake oil. Where are the patents? Where are the peer reviewed papers? Where are the real explanations for the results measured by Golden Sound? It cant be that hard, can it?.
I fear your response misses the point on a number of areas, however, there are comments below that cover that issue in more detail, so I shall not bother.
MQA is a licensable technology - one that companies have to pay to incorporate into their products ergo so does the consumer. It's marketed as a new standard, yet it feels like monetisation on an unproven, and unaccountable standard.
Regardless if MQA is good or bad , from ethical point of view , MQA should be questioned !! they clearly say it comes in lossless file format but does it represent the original file that was submitted by the creator ?? GoldenSound proofed that his file was manipulated and that for me is just enough to dissmess MQA regardless if there technique or encoding improved the sound , because i dont care if it is better or not ,, i want to hear the original source and i dont like to be fooled that music file is the original.
Here is a link were they clearly say it is lossless file but is it THE original file ?
@t
Watch my video Is MQA lossless. The term lossless is multi interpretable.
For over a year I subscribed to the top tier of both Tidal and Qobuz. I have several DAC's, that includes the Mytek Brooklyn +, PS Audio and T+A. Ultimately I determined that Qobuz just sounds better. Tidal subscription has been canceled.
Hans, I respect your opinions and have watched your videos for years. My opinion is that MQA is garbage. Snake oil. Cryptic. Resistant to any criticism or scrutiny. You post a video, mostly supportive of MQA, talking about cryptic and tangential concepts but fail to address the direct, objective measure presented by Golden Sound???? Why not refute them and then go on the tangents of why you think MQA sounds better. Personally, I do not think MQA sounds better. I listen with a dCS Bartók with Focal Utopia headphones. Why not review this platform? You have said you are not a headphone guy. Fair enough. But at least test MQA vs. flax or DSD on a dCS platform (hopefully you can get a Vivaldi stack) to compare. I am perplexed by your totally subjective support of MQA. The objective analysis of MQA (by Golden Sound) is alarming. You need to confront this directly and objectively to remain credible . I enjoy your videos and will watch them even if you disregard my challenge to you to view MQA OBJECTIVELY rather than purely subjectively.
How many of those papers are peer reviewed?
There is a big difference between promoting a civil discussion within the community and extending that discussion to a corporation who dont sell the service (lossless streaming for hifi tracks) they claim to. Not sure why you open the video claiming its an all or nothing here
It's times like these that I'm glad I purchase all my Hi-Res music outright and make FLAC rips from CDs for my own collection. What a mess.
Well, we had the same discussion on ripping lossless and many other idiot discussions by people that often even did not test what they advocate.
Thanks for the comprehensive counterpoint! I am though still suspicious of MQA as a corporate entity and it's relationship with Tidal as opposed to a nascent technology. I also don't have anything personally against Bob Stuart and his credentials (which I also don't think GS has either). GS even encourages people to do their own listening if possible and try the 1st unfold vs full unfold since it looks like Tidal doesn't allow non-MQA hifi choices anymore.
At the very least these new developments allow me more freedom in my purchasing choices for DAC's as I now don't feel constrained to buy an MQA enabled product.
I think the biggest problem is the lack of transparency and honesty from MQA. All their claims are either false, subjective at best or completely unverifiable.
If one person prefers what MQA does to their audio, then they can add the filter, but this filter is irreversible. That puts the integrity of the data in question as opposed to the dac, amplifier or headphones altering that sound.
Instead of giving you the steak and let you add the salt and condiment, they add an undisclosed amount of salt and undisclosed condiment that some may like, but some just want the steak and as their own condiment of none at all. Worst part is the cook (artist) did not add the condiment nor did they intend it on their steak.
Hope that makes sense.
People are afraid of getting locked into a proprietary format like MQA and also feel that the licensing model will hurt manufacturers and artists. The tests out there unfortunately lack transparency because the bias is there and of course because no one seems to know how the mystery box of MQA actually works.
Is it possible that listening to music is subjective? The only person who needs to love your playback system is yourself. Do whatever works for you.
Bingo!
Well said!
This
So very true. Objectivity is ultimately subjective.
I think I'm more put off by the MQA team's general sketchiness. I'd be pretending to say that I hear any of this stuff, and I don't even have a bad sound system. They just feel like they're trying something tricky, and their lack of outward respect when questioned is really offputting.
.
I used Tidal for a while and my biggest complaint was the lack of volume leveling, even though that option was selected. Secondly; listening while working I rarely thought 'wow that sounds good" and saw the MQA lights on or "MASTER" connected to the track. Now I use Amazon HD and often have those "sounds good " moments and frequently find the track is 96/24 or 192/24. Also no problems with volume leveling. I am much happier with Amazon HD and with Prime it is cheaper.. No experience with Qobuz.
Take normalization loudness off
For my ears Deezer sounds natural, correct and not broken... Maybe because of non modified flac files
I'm pretty sure Tidal opt for MQA is to offer highest sound quality without burdening their bandwidth not the consumer, many ppl say they have no problem streaming 24b144khz but actually the provider is having the problem.
.
Hansy: The GS Test presenter simply called out Tidal's erroneous marketing/sales claim of offering 'Lossless/Hi-Rez Audio'. It is neither, and the presenter brings this to the reader's attention. He simply states that Tidal's advertised premise/promise of lossless/ hi-rez audio is in fact erroneous -and thus concerned listener's best be informed/avoid such an inferior system when advertised as 'genuine/hi-rez' -when in fact it's not. For goodness sake, we should be grateful for his thorough and accurate evaluation -not condemn it.
pj
Not streaming anything yet. Too many cheap CDs out there. Thanks for the great reviews and I’m discovering great new music here Hans (Warnes).
I take your point on cheap CD's but you then mention discovery of new music, which, given the sheer volume of material on streaming sites is surely an advantage of streaming. I have only recently moved away from over two years with the free version of Spotify (the ad's are fairly infrequent and short) and month long trials of the £10/month premium version are very regularly available. The Algorithm which compiles weekly playlists based on your listening is remarkable, almost spooky in it's "hit rate" and has introduced a lot of new artists to me. Why not try the free version for a while, it really did give my listening a new lease of life with it's ease and, as I say, the "new" music it's opened up for me. - Anyway, "enjoy the music" as Hans always says ! lol.
@@englishsteve1465 Ultimately Spotify pays close to nothing per stream, so cheap CD's are much more supportive for musicians than Spotify. Please consider that.
So Hans your response is simply to ignore the content of the video and not address the way MQA handled this GoldenSound video? You come across as an apologist for MQA with a cognitive bias as you have convinced yourself MQA is great and have personal relationships with the people involved?
MQA makes a number of "technical" not "subjective" claims, they are a technology company and that is where they derive their revenue. The GoldenSound video proved, without doubt, some of those claims are simply false. We know this as we have the Mastered recording, and can see what has happened to it after the MQA process.
MQA seems to confirm these findings by their actions which were to swiftly remove the post MQA process content so the public and the community couldn't do their own research and testing. What do they have to hide? Does that seem like a reasonable response? Why play the man and not the ball if they have a technical answer to this technical review.
This is not about how it sounds at this point, this is a review of the technical technology and the claims MQA make about it, ie nothing subjective.
this hurts, so much money, to find what? hans i love ya man , you've helped have me alot.and even if mqa is snake oil on steroids im still gonna like you. what hurts is now by default without more proof, i cannot trust mqa. 1.they are not being transparent. 2. i still have not seen scientific challenge to the results he came up with either. 3. them whacking his material in protest of his claims was cowardly and dishonest, if the product is true there should not be fear of any findings, and actually the rebuttal should be true scientific evidence to prove the claim of mqa ,not a whitewash and no stand. sorry but this hurts. i worked hard for that money. well like you say , enjoy the music.
Get yourself an MQA DAC on loan and judge for yourself.
The problem (that I think is skirted in this video) is their objective claims of performance vs. their ridiculous efforts to prevent any outside verification.
Forget about audio for a second because the main problem is *informed consent* here.
The history lesson seems like unfair narrative framing since the history of the music industry also includes numerous formats which legitimately did not live up to early marketing and technical claims especially when you actually directly reference at least one of those cases.
I disagree that MQA/Tidal sounds better. Qobuz sounds noticeably better to me, and I have years of audiophile listening.
Many of my audiophile friends agree. In fact, in my circle those that like MQA are very few. But..... each to their own this game is subjective after all.
Personally, I discontinued my Tidal subscription and moved away from MQA when Qobuz became available in my region.
IMO, this debate is getting a little old. An end is in sight with Spotify and Apple soon to offer lossless. Assuming neither adopt MQA I suspect those that don't like MQA have little to worry about.
About using dithering and noise in recording: Alpha Audio has a nice interview series with Brandon Heist from the recording label TRPTK where one of the subjects is on dithering and noise, from a recording engineer / mixing engineer / mastering engineer. Quite insightful. And listening to his TRPTK recordings: he knows what he is doing.
Thanks for the video, Hans; I appreciate your neutrality, and I expected no less. I subscribed to Tidal for about a year, and really enjoyed the sound quality of MQA through my Dragonfly DAC. This DAC was my only MQA compatible unit, and it worked fine for a while. When Qobuz came along, liked their sound, and the fact that no special DAC was needed. Tidal is $20/month and Qobuz is $15/month........the decision to go with Qobuz was quite clear!
Good to see you set up again in the attic room. I trust your reno went well!
I tried to go into this with a clean and open mind, but i cant shake the feeling you're not actually really saying anything or addressing anything.
The closest I get from your story is that MQA might be trying to get better sound by making sure the DACs can do their work better, and/or fix loss of audio signal in the ADC/DAC stage. And that might show up as noise or artifacts or problems when you measure stuff , but might actually be closer to the original 'analog audio wave in the air'.
It doesn't adres the audible noise floor, it doesn't address the weird marketing clamps, it doesn't address that MQA refuses to show tests where people can compare head to head, and it doesn't address the fact that they work against anyone trying to prove their claims as true.
A company with nothing to hide doesn't need to hide anything. A company who tries to keep stuff hidden has something to hide.
I love HiFi, but MQA discussions is the one subject that makes me ashamed to call myself an "audiophile". The anger and vitriol is so toxic it's disturbing.
It just reinforces all the negative stereotypes of audiophiles being socially maladjusted and not getting out enough.
Those are not audiophiles but computer audiophiles....
@@TheHansBeekhuyzenChannel be civil and respectful.
Of course, if you like how MQA sounds get it. But there is a difference between a speaker cable which is treated with “atomic rays” (maybe snake oil, but it sounds better for some people) and a claim to sell high res files but they are actually not. The first case falls into the category of believing, the second into scam. If that is the case (I personally don’t know but the suspicion is in the world and it is up to MQA to refute it), the reputation of the inventors don’t matter. As we see all the time, reputation is and never was a guaranty for integrity.
I have a "Masters" subscription in Tidal. I use the Windows 7 Tidal app. If I choose "Hi-Fi" in the Streaming Settings will I still be served up the "Master" MQA conversion, truncated to 16/44 or the original CD released FLAC file?
Hi Hans, for once I have to dislike the video. I can agree the bottom line of the video you refer to should have been “...for these reasons I will leave Tidal” instead of “...e everybody should ban Tidal!” but although the conclusion was wrong, I liked the way he addressed the issues he sees and the overall tone of the conversation (especially the initial request to help him investigate further, even his own approach to testing).
So I really hoped flaws in his method were the topic in this video of yours.
You preferred to focus on his “because of their attitude, people behind MQA must be bad...” to testify your appreciation of the serious professionals in there or to underline how even the all-time-praised AAA recording process is lossy (and again, it was: not original video intention to promote something better than MQA but simply to prove MQA’s own statements) which is totally fine: this is your channel and this is your video, this is your position on MQA.
If no mention of the original video was present here, this could have been a nice one as usual.
But for this time, I have to pass on and wait for next Friday.
All the best.
And whatever you do, treat your listening room and enjoy the music. Life is beautiful.
My DAC doesn't support MQA so my opinions might probably be invalid, idk.
I've been listening to 24/44.1 music in both formats (i.e., MQA & normal FLAC).
When I first listened to MQA, I was blown away, it sounded better, just cleaner, crisper, more precise & might I say, perfect.
Overtime though, after listening to more albums some of which (new ones) were released on the same day in both formats, my perception has changed.
It's like every MQA file has something similar (maybe a similar smoothing of all notes, a similarly black background, or something that I can't put a finger on).
The MQA still sounds just like how I described but it now feels artificial to me. That's the only word that describes what I feel. It's like the life has been sucked out of the track a little bit (and AI added haha). It seems like I can't notice those perfect imperfections in any MQA file which makes it feel artificial to me.
I'm not talking about remastered tracks, those sound excellent to me.
Well I need an MQA DAC to make any final assumptions so maybe it'll change, but it bugs me to not know what's going on there, and is it any good.
I appreciate your passionately expressed views though Hans. Much love & respect.
I agree with you when you say people should make their own decisions based on evidence and self research, rather than someone’s video calling to boycott a service.
I am still undecided on this whole situation. I have tried MQA on some albums with a supported DAC, and it definitely sounds good.
Comparing the spectrogram, there are some differences, and it’s noticeable that MQA wins the “loudness war”.
Thanks for the nice video
I have Tidal and run it through an early 2000's Denon DAC... I'm wondering if I am missing something by not being on Qobuz?
The wrap is the most important point. If you like it, thats all thats important. And everyone has access to all formats and can compare for themselves. TbH there is literally millions of people that still think aac is just fine and sounds good and don't know hear the value of higher formats, the arguements are endless. And funny enough i suspect many audiophiles may still consistently fail to hear the difference consistently in a abx test. What then? Is high res streaming worthless most of the time then? Bring this arguement across tubes vs SS amps, or R2R vs DS dacs..and ive read enough of people going at each other throats online completely missing the point of this hobby. Music and the method of enjoyment is personal...PERIOD.
👍🏼
Thanks for this. Is there a valid way to try MQA without buying an expensive DAC with this capability? In other words what is the least expensive way to audition the difference between MQA and a lossless CD quality version of a track.
Am I mistaken that this is hard to do within Tidal? That is I think it is hard to switch from a CD quality to MQA within Tidal? Am I incorrect?
The first unfold of mqa can be done in software, PC version of tidal or android. However, golden said it seemed that the hifi version of the song is really the folded MQA version, and switching from the hifi to master is perhaps not that informative. Although, I prefer the MQA version (I have a DAC capable of full mqa decoding).
Listen for your self and see what you prefer 😄
You can sign up for a free trial of Roon. If I remember correctly, it does full MQA unfolding in it's software.
Sub 1000$, you have the Helms Bolt (99$), the THX Onyx (199$), the AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt (299$) and the BlueSound Node 2i (499$) to name a few. The first three are protable DACs whereas the Node 2i is a DAC, streamer and digital preamp
Usb audio player Pro has a core decoder plugin that you can use with any dac. It gives 2x unfold.
Thanks Hans for your take on the Golden Sound MQA test.
👍🏼
Even if the mqa version sounds better it can be just becouse it had receive a better master, what is very common ourdays. CD is great but a lot of times the studios master it just to sound loud. If the mqa version receive a better master it will sound better and once the people interested in mqa are audiophiles it is probably the mqa version will receive a better master with greater dynamic range and less compression. Does it mean mqa is better than FLAC or CD? No way. A well mixed and mastered CD or FLAC will probably sound better than the MQA version. The approach seems to be getting the better masters from the studios, selling it just in mqa and convincing everybody mqa is better. Than people have to buy a licensed mqa DAC just to listen to a better master that would sound even better on CD or FLAC if it was released in that format.
I use a NUC running Roon Roc - do you know if you can set it to restart after a power outage?
Get an UPS if power outage is short and NUC is very low power consumption, it will stay there for long.
I'm a long time Tidal user, and enjoy their "master" tracks. However, I know there's a big placebo effect with audio and buzzwords, however, I really believe their master tracks are of superior quality.
Because they audibly ARE better.
What is the purpose of MQA? What does it add for the chain from production to me listening at home?
I made a number of videos on MQA: ua-cam.com/play/PLMbsmejHnP8EPHNgxSxrVvQi7-dW7gm9o.html
I think MQA will impress mostly those coming from lower resolution listening. For the ones used to standard hi-res formats I don't think is a big deal. Good thing is everyone is free to Listen whatever it wants to. As you said if you don't like MQA just stay away from it and move on. End of the story.
I think you're on to something here. The time I heard hires I was stunned by the quality. It took me many hours to learn how to hear it and the subtleties of the differences among formats.
Dear Hans, thank you for tempering the emotions on this very debatable topic and the Tip to use what's the most important and helpful tool:Our 👂👂! By the way:Your videos are like a big training course in HiFi for me🙏
Thank you for your thoughts. I have the feeling that has been blown up quite a bit. At the end everyone can just listen at home and make a decision based on the gear used and the personal music preference
I wished people would have listened to MQA DAC's, then there would have been far less discussion.
Oh dear, all the negative comments, I can say that I am convinced that MQA does improve sound quality on less expensive DAC's. That said, I have a Chord Hugo Dac, and it sounds roughly the same with or without MQA. But I use Foobar 2000 and I don't know what anti-jitter code is in there. So, when I listen to music, I let my ears be the judge and not argue about how it works. So far MQA has not disappointed me, on any Dac. Love the video and gave it a thumbs up. Keep up the Good work Hans.
Well said!
There is a dilemma now. Whom shall we trust? The ears or the measurements? Or is both correct but we don't understand deep enough how technology impacts good sound? Suggest that in the future you refrain from such unprovable technical explanations.
I think you've done a great job of explaining how things are not as simple as they seem. My interpretation of what you've said is that mqa would be better than flac for some dacs, so it only makes sense for them to call is lossless since flac is considered lossless. But from our perspective it makes more sense to question the term lossless in all cases, and instead ask pragmatically does it sound good
in my experiance MQA files from tidel do not sound as good as HD recordings from other streaming providers, I did a blind A/B test with a friend using the same recordings, and the MQA tracks had something missing, it was minor, but noticeable, I managed an 80% hit list during the blind test to identfy the MQA files.....
It comes down to the hardware. Some non-MQA hardware sounds less with MQA files, others sound great.
Thank you, I don´t know why I missed this video...
No worries!
I switched from Tidal to Qobuz only because my DAC (Schiit Bifrost 2) does not handle MQA. I can play the Hi Res tracks from Qobuz and they sound great. If I had invested in a MQA DAC than I would have kept Tidal. I don't care for how Tidal pushes their own genre/artists on you despite your listening habits. Seems like they have an agenda. I do like Tidal's user interface better than Qobuz.
The wisest sentence You used in Your fair video is "if You like Mqa use Tidal and You like lossless use Qobuz". I think exactly the same. The point is listening to Music, not technology behind it. Personally I have subscriptions to both Tidal HiFi and Qobuz.
I'm still unconvinced, but I appreciate your views.
👍🏼
You’re arguments are logical. Sure they should keep they’re patents for they’re work. But the way they react to criticism and the lack of explanation to what the guy figured out, is what makes them suspicious to me.
I like the idea of any technology that attempts to improve sound quality, and have no problem with MQA’s business model as the market determines its outcome.
Personally I use MQA through tidal (with Brooklyn Bridge), though admittedly I can’t tell the difference (I’ve tried coloring same tracks between Tidal and Qobuz on same gear, and failed even my own biased layman testing). That said, high res on great gear and a great DAC sounds great, MQA or not. As audiophiles, we do tend to overthink things sometimes..;)
thank you
Welcome!
Okey here is my take on things and you (Hans) will probably never read this.
regarding Jitter and the ivor snakeoil topic this is true i 100% agree with you here it was the same when DVD came out i heard most people saying that it is snakeoil its not better why would i upgrade and then again with Blu-ray the vast majority dont like to buy special devices when what they have is good enough and this is sad because that makes innovators less motivated to keep trying.
the reason some of them worked and became the new norm is because of testing and selecting a clear winner this is the main issue with MQA there is nothing to test golden sound went through many hoops to get at least some tests and what he found was not good if MQA is so much better why cant they allow people to perform tests.
i have a pretty high end set up and neither me or my wife heard any positive difference on Tidal in fact some songs were down right terrible almost like if they were released b4 the mastering toke place IF Tidal want MQA to be a thing they need to allow people to perform testing i am not on board with MQA because i have not heard a major difference but if it does become the new norm good for them so far my CDs and Vinyl are good enough
The question then is: what DAC did you use?
I have several MQA Cds and find them pleasing though suspect they're not as impressive as SACD. I haven't been that impressed with Tidal but have noticed it streams better then Qobuz on my phone in my township. Both stream fine at home.
My ears disslike MQA and Tidal
Estimado Sr. Beekhuyzen, muy buen comentario. No me queda claro su opinión sobre la calidad del sonido en MQA. Por otra parte en lo que a mi respecta si opino que es una buena codificación pero al no tener las personas como codificarlo lo condena a una exclusividad que terminará utilización fuera del marco académico. Un saludo afectuoso desde Cuba.
Estoy de acuerdo contigo, pero el futuro de MQA parece bastante sombrío.
No reason to be rude to you or to the subject. You explored the subject intellectually and I appreciate it. Thanks. I do listen to mqa through radio paradise and bluesound node and I like world music and its sound.
👍🏼
I can clearly hear a difference (for the better) with MQA tracks.... This is with a Node2i -> Rega Brio-R -> Monitor Audio "Monitor 200".
Thanks for sharing
MQA has been such a let down. Paying more for a "brand" that offers less. Qobuz offers superb quality plain and simple. No gimmicks, or "blue lights" to try to trick the consumer they're listening to "master quality" (what does that really mean anyway? ). Heck I would take Deezer Hifi any day over MQAs messed up audio and sketchy advertising.
Is it an improvement and are you willing to pay for it?
Hear! Hear!
Audibly I've heard several recordings in MQA, the CD FLAC encoded Tidal version and the CD release fed into the same DAC the others are played.
Always the CD version is superior, I've no idea how or why but it is obvious when I listen. The MQA versions when compared to the CD quality FLAC recordings offers (to my ears) more open and engaging sound than the FLAC CD ripped versions in nearly every case. I think music type and mastering is the reason why it is beneficial in some circumstances and not others. Hearing the reverb and acoustic ambiance and decays of notes more clearly when listening to the MQA variants has me listening closer.than when I listen to the FLAC ripped.veraiins. either way streamed music is improving and I'm no longer forced to listen to my own collection solely as the quality isn't sitting so far away from my source material.
Have a great day, I do enjoy your channel.kerpmup.the good work.
The real question is whether it is your hardware, your preferences or the MQA process.....
I find the mqa albums I bought quite excellent. I don't really mind whether it is mqa, flac or dsd, as long as the recording and mastering is well done - and most importantly: the artist makes great music. for instance, channel classics do recordings extremely well
Your quite right of course, ive heard some excellently mastered recordings in mqa format. Being lossy doesnt mean sounding bad, and a great mastering can be magnificent in any format. I dont think the world needs mqa, but that cant invalidate great music xD
@@titntin5178 …if you have not lost any of the ‘music’ information then as far as I am concerned it is not ‘lossy’ 🍻
I’m an audiophile who must have watched tens of Hans Beekhuyzen video’s over the past two or three years, as I have watched others. I will hereby state unequivocally that I have NEVER found anything in Hans’ videos that didn’t match my personal listening experiences. I may not always like his professor-like mannerisms, but I appreciate Hans’ huge effort in teaching us audiophiles about the theories that underly sound improvements (enjoyment of the music is all that counts).
On MQA, I will say that it has given me huge enjoyment when listening to tracks on TIDAL, which is the first high-quality streaming service I subscribed to and is, in my opinion, an absolute steal for what it offers (compared to what I used to spend in physical media). For me, TIDAL played through the best equipment chain is better than most vinyl. The only thing that sounds better to my ears is DSD, especially when sourced from analogue.
The difference to AAC or MP3 encoded music isn’t even worth discussing. These might as well be different universes and people who suggest otherwise are not audiophiles. If they enjoy music that way, I’m happy for them but they are no reference for the enjoyment that *I* derive from my system.
I am happily going to evaluate Qobuz soon, since it recently launched here in Sweden. I expect it to sound as good as my native high res audio files which I bought from HDTracks and HighResAudio.com. Upsampled to DSD those sound almost as good as my SACDs and DVD-As. We audiophiles are a lucky bunch if we can get that quality level from any $240/year streaming service. If MQA makes money on the way, then good for them. The real issue is for the artists to receive more funds so that our content keeps coming. After all, no equipment can give us goosebumps that it hasn’t received from the source.
This is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't change the fact of how poor most MQA recordings sound.
Not non my setups they don't.
In the end it is about enjoying the music and we can only do that through our own ears. I until recently had the same setup for many years. Did I change because because my hearing deteriorated. Possibly
In the world of computer science and compression, "lossless" has a specific meaning. It means that whatever you compress can be decompressed to the *exact* original data. Tidal OBVIOUSLY knows this to be the case and yet still chose to claim MQA tracks as "lossless."
It doesn't matter if the tracks are "as good as lossless to our ears," MQA tracks are not lossless. You could maybe get away with saying "no loss in quality" because that's not a term with exact scientific meaning, but they didn't. They said lossless, and that's obviously a complete lie.
As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of the story. Tidal knew what they were doing by claiming tracks to be lossless when they aren't. People have every right to boycott a service that is either blatantly dishonest, or grossly incompetent in the field for which they provide a service.
You seem to have bought into MQA's responses, which are a classic example of rhetoric known as "moving the goalposts." It's dishonest. It's not admitting they were overzealous with their language and being humbled. It's an attempt to gaslight people into claiming they never said something they definitely did say.
It also doesn't really matter that anyone with an ounce of knowledge in the field would know their original claims were laughably bullshit. Their goal is clearly not to swindle experts, but to make it look like none of the experts have objections in order to swindle people without that knowledge. It's completely irresponsible to be someone with the expertise to point out MQA is a fucking scam, and act like it's not.
For me lossless means a recording medium that has no loss. See my video: ua-cam.com/video/9NHuwOgWYOo/v-deo.html
Great video. Thank you for weighing in on the matter. I’m not completely in agreement with your vision, but it was insightful nonetheless.
I like your civilized discussion and your final words saying “enjoy the music”. 👍
👍 😉 😎
i think the problem not really about MQA better sound or not, what i feel is how they do business and deal with problem, if all the test and data or number they show ,everything they claim are all base on real science, so in their opinions they believe their products or service is better , then believe or not ,buy or not buy,is customers choice,doesn't matter your ears can tell the different, let customers to decide , thats right way to do business to me. and the other way is if they only say"hey people ,believe or not my products or service is sound better ",but no provide any test or data, totally pure faith kind of stuff right there,not very scientific, but not really fraud claim too, so still okay.
last way if all the tests ,data and number everything they show and claim not base on real world science, then thats wrong way to do business,unacceptable.
in Golden Sound that MQA video, just put all technical thing aside, Tidal the way deal with customers really really big problem too, thats totally different problem. and sorry for my poor english.
Music seems to be about passion. Who’d have thought that. I like hearing the different view points, and then making my own mind up. Thank you for the video.
I appreciate that!
Thank you for your even-handed approach to this subject, Hans. I love how Tidal/MQA sounds, and I love how Qobuzz sounds. Personally went with Qobuzz because it’s a bit cheaper for the HIFI option compared to Tidal. Seemed like Tidal/MQA had more “grunt” and Qobuzz sounded more “airy” and “natural.” If I could afford both, I’d have them both.
I have seen both of Golden Sounds videos. The data looks very sound to me. I do not mind MQA. It is fine it claims to be the best but I don't see how they can prove it to me objectively lossless. I agree with Golden Sound that if it is truly lossless they wouldn't need to limit access to the encoder and make it so hard to compare as they do now.
Another thing is that MQA is forced in Tidal. Even when playing "CD" quality audio. This means that we do not get any choice as consumers on the Tidal platform.
As for your conclusion that Golden Sound says MQA is bad and should be banned and that you should unsubscribe from Tidal. I get it as that he suggests you do that if you want to, but he also says it is fine if you like MQA. He is critical about the claims MQA make, not against people who like it. He invite you to test yourself to recreate his results and he makes the files he used available.
Golden Sound points out that if you do not like MQA you would need to unsubscribe from Tidal with the way the system works now.
I have had a Tidal subscription for years and this is not going to end it. For me MQA sounds just about the same as CD quality. I'm not sure I would be able to tell MQA and CD quality apart. And for that reason I would prefer to have the option. It looks to me like MQA might be lossy and the I would prefer CD quality. Tidal is cheaper than the alternative for me and the discovery algorithms Tidal have is very valuable to me.
So TL;DR: You video is for the most part fine when you tell about your own opinions. But from my point of view you come to the wrong conclusions about the message Golden Sound is sending with his videos.
I don't get the concept of undoing the influence of studio recording equipment. Isn't that part of the music? Once music is recorded, it is mastered. The person doing the mastering will take into account what came out from the mixing console. If we now undo that mixing console bias, we would need to redo the mastering, right?
Great video 👍 thanks
Thank you too!
Thanks. I look a little more nuanced on this topic now. Like that you argue so calmly and objectively. Why audio debates go straight into the trenches. No one gets wiser by it. At least not when people are scolded and declared idiots - directly or with a knowledgeable crooked smile.
Hans, it’s good to have you back again. I hope your roof is better! Your comments on this Tidal-MQA thing represent the teacup very nicely. Streaming is above all, a numbers game. I mean that in every conceivable way. The issue with MQA is really with their marketing. Is it above board? I would hope so, but the smoke and mirrors behind the technology are not helping. Tidal’s response to Goldensound was pathetic and heavy handed. Which doesn’t mean Tidal is not a good streaming service, just that they are flat footed and intolerant of criticism. They have made a rod for their own back, I think.
I am perplexed on why the emotional response to his thorough and well done video ? At the end of the day, if Tidal adds noise and is lossy, how can it call itself Hi-Fi ? It's marketing and I even bought into it for 2 years. I watched his video and he presented facts and your video just seems like an emotional rant with nothing of substance to add to the argument. Yes let people listen to what they want, but still call a spade a spade. My ears say that Amazon HD sounds better than Tidal so I switched. Don't shoot the messenger.
Vinyl vs digital, tubes vs solid state, horns vs electrostatic, we can all decide what we like and build systems accordingly. I'm always amazed how discussions on MQA trigger and polarize people on a level similar to discussions on politics.
Thank you for always being civil and respectful.
Thanks Hans 👍…. I for one am going to play it by ear
Great!
Bob Ludwig himself endorsed MQA. For me, it didn’t get better than that. Over time I have become disillusioned with MQA. Not every MQA sounds excellent.
Not every FLAC or ALAC sounds excellent. And 1’s and 0’s do not automatically equal best sound. Timing and how those 1’s and 0’s end up converted matter almost as much as the initial mastering and encoding process.
Still enjoying the music 🙂
👍🏼
dose anyone else hear mqa sort of sounds like a vinal record without the static... I've played several tracks on vinal cd flac and tidal master, and the closest to the mqa was the record. thoughts?
also it says to set the audio settings on a pc to exclusive mode 16 bit 44.1 but to me it works better set in exclusive mode 24 bit 44.1, if you've got a tidal account try it... i can't compare it to other streaming services other than Spotify and Deezer but to me it sounds better than Spotify hands down... but it has a more analogue sound to Deezer which I like
also the 24bit 44.1 setting sounds like a FLAC file to me on non mqa track having just listened to the same track on dsd, FLAC and 24 44.1 tidal... can't speak for anyone but myself through, everyone's ears are different just thought I'd share my thoughts
Actually tidal is pretty good. Used it for 3 years. Problem I have is that I can’t filter my albums by genre. This is a massive problem (maybe you can but I can’t seem to figure it out). The other issue is classical music. Searching composers is a nightmare and you just get a bunch of shitty classical albums. If I was just into classical I’d go with one off the classical streaming services but I’m into allot of diff stuff. Qobuz deals with both of these issues. To me, Tidal sounds different to Qobuz. Tidal has some sort of echo Qobuz doesnt. I found listening to my own flac files vs Tidal there was a diff which I couldn’t understand. Now I do and I prefer Qobuz
One way to sort by genre is to create a playlist of your favourites in each genre.